An example that is not an interested person who may request a trial to revoke trademark registration.

In accordance with the direction of the authority's warning, the claimant who actively indicates and practices that he will not use the trademark of this case by advertising that he will substitute the trademark of the respondent and that he will not use the trademark of this case, is not an interested person who may request the cancellation trial of the trademark of this case.

Article 43(2) of the Trademark Act

Supreme Court Decision 79Hu81 delivered on October 30, 1979 delivered on March 26, 1974, 80Hu13 Delivered on July 7, 1981

Attorney Jeon Han-chul, Inc., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellant] Kim Dong-dong, Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant]

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 103,106,107 decided December 8, 1979

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by a claimant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental reasons).

According to the records, we affirm the decision of the court below that recognized the fact that the claimant did not use the original trademark of the respondent and advertised that he would substitute the new trademark according to the order of the authority's warning, and that the claimant who actively expresses and practices that the trademark should not be used as a person who has a direct and real interest which is damaged due to the existence of the trademark in this case. Thus, the so-called "interested person" under Article 89 (2) of the former Patent Act (Article 950 of the Act, Article 1293 of the amended Trademark Act, and Article 43 (2) of the current Trademark Act) which is applied to this case cannot be deemed to be an "interested person", and even if the trade name of the claimant is different from the theory of lawsuit, its conclusion is the same. Therefore, it is just to dismiss the original decision on the ground that it is unlawful, and there is no illegality such as the omission of judgment, lack of reasons, and incomplete deliberation, and therefore, the argument is

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice) Kim Jong-young (Presiding Justice)